If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: The Jocketty Files

If the entire grade of a GM was based solely on who you acquired, without factoring in contracts, money spent, W/L record

I'm having a hard time seeing what matters besides W/L record actually. Wake me up when we get a GM/Owner combo that fixes that.

How anyone can defend a guy that signed Taveras to a two year contract is beyond me. The Reds in the past few years have seemed to make it a priority to sign and acquire guys I specifically hoped would never end up in Cincinnati, it'd be nice if that would stop.

We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
--Oscar Wilde

Re: The Jocketty Files

There are certainly plenty of valid excuses for why Jocketty has yet to turn things around. From false promises of payroll increases from the owner to oversized contracts that can't be traded for a decent return to simply not having had enough time.I tend to lean toward buying these excuses.

The Taveras and Lincoln deals were poor moves but it is possible that Walt might have been shooting a little higher if he had had more money to spend.I still believe that in the case of Taveras, Jocketty was trying to show a little respect for Baker in getting him a guy he liked.In the end it's still Walts fault but I don't think it's a bad idea to let your manager have some input.I just hope that WJ learned his lesson and knows now that Baker should have no input.

I think it's easier to get a good gage on how responsible Walt is for where the Reds are by listing things that Walt did not do.

So the question is where would we be and what would Jocketty do if he had 35 million to spend on contracts for 2010 but would have to replace Cordero, Harang and Aaroyo?While that's a fun question to answer the reality is that we will have to wait a few more years before we have an answer.

Re: The Jocketty Files

Originally Posted by HokieRed

O'Brien acquired Bailey, Bruce, Cueto, and Francisco--in two years. If adding impact players is to be the standard, as I think it should be, there's no doubt the biggest mistake the organization's made in recent years is getting rid of O'Brien.

Ughhh Dan O'Brien was ineffective as a big league GM, he was a legacy, a scout in a suit.

Hands down the worst Reds GM in the past 25 years, it's not even a contest from where I sit.

Re: The Jocketty Files

Originally Posted by OnBaseMachine

What I don't get is all the excuses for Jocketty while Krivsky was constantly hammered for everything he did. Even Krivsky's good moves were chalked up as luck while people make excuse after excuse for Jocketty. Jocketty has been horrible - far worse than Krivsky. Far worse.

Re: The Jocketty Files

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

I'm having a hard time seeing what matters besides W/L record actually. Wake me up when we get a GM/Owner combo that fixes that.

How anyone can defend a guy that signed Taveras to a two year contract is beyond me. The Reds in the past few years have seemed to make it a priority to sign and acquire guys I specifically hoped would never end up in Cincinnati, it'd be nice if that would stop.

They all have their dogs. Howsam traded Hal McRae for Roger Nelson and Richie Scheinblum, and brought in Merv Rettenmund. What he did build was one of the greatest teams of all time, but he didn't do it in one season.

Talent is God Given: be humble.
Fame is man given: be thankful.
Conceit is self given: be careful.

Re: The Jocketty Files

Harang, Arroyo and Cordero contract discussion always has a missing piece or two. They don't mention what the alternatives were, and what the effects and cost would have been given a different scenario for Krivsky and Castellini from that point forward.

This is often cited but what is omitted is what the market cost for pitchers of those ilk were when they were signed. If they had not been signed where would a bad team been without them, and if those three were gone today, what would be the replacement cost and terms of the contracts to replace them?

Just who would be available, wanting to come to Cincinnati and again at what cost. To constantly cite those contracts and to ignore that the pitching quality was needed then and is needed now and at a high price has a major hole in it.

Back up the calendar to when Harang, Arroyo and the time when Cordero was signed.

A. Let’s say they don’t sign Harang or Arroyo to an extension.
B. What do you have for pitching once it was decided that Arroyo and Harang were to costly.
C. Who was going to pitch.
D. What type of pitcher would have taken their place?
E. How would a team that was already bad have done without them?
F. No Cordero, so who would have closed, and what effect would that have had on the rest of the bullpen?
G. What other option’s that might have been had cost and consequences too.
H. Who were the better or equal to pitchers that the Reds could have signed at a lower amount?
I. Who can they sign now equal or greater than those three for a lower amount? I mean pitcher’s who look as good now as when Harang, Arroyo and Cordero were signed.

Here you are in 2010 Walt catches a break, he is able to unload all three without sending any money, some sugar daddy of a coast team or teams take them off his hands for some top level offensive prospects, that Dusty and Walt just love.

Who is going to replace those experienced veteran pitchers?
Does any quality want to sign with Cincy?
Is any even available?
At what cost, and what’s the length of contracts.

Doesn’t matter if it is now or if it was when Krivsky was strapped with the task of pleasing Castellini, the same questions or questions and obstacles like those had to be dealt with then, as the same would be challenges now, and very expensive.

To cite those three contracts to Krivsky is fine, they were signed while he was employed by Castellini, but to act, and to omit that those pitchers were needed then, and that some of their type/quality when pitching well is needed now, and that all pitching decent-good-to excellent cost, and it is not cheap no matter who the organization and to slip that by as if it was going to be addressed somehow, without filling that in, leaves a hole in the story of the three big bad contracts for pitchers.

Suppose that Castellini had not signed off on those contracts, knowing then as Castellini knows now of the ownership groups financial situations and plans, suppose Castellini would not have signed off on those, what would the pitching picture and past couple seasons without them have looked like, and would we not have been complaining all along for better pitching, as some of us are now? At what cost?

One way or another there would have been a replacement cost for those pitchers if they had not been signed, not just in dollars, but both, performances, dollars, and risk.

Plus it won't be too far into the future that you will get to find out what it is like to not have pitcher's like the ones pitching as they were when Harang, Arroyo, and even Cordero were signed.

I'll admit I wrote this poorly, I apologize, but I think you get my jest. While you might even be able to speak better to quality, cost, risk, performances or the lack of them, had those three not been signed and another group of three had taken their places.

Re: The Jocketty Files

I hope that any GM can draft a couple of good players in a few years, it's what they do with the rest that tells me more and what Dan O did with the rest was retrograding nonsense.

O'Brien drafted more talent in two years than Bowden in ten and, apart from the Milton contract, which he did not want to enter into, made no bad deals--making, in fact, one of the best in Reds' history in unloading the massively overpaid local favorite, Casey. Your judgments have, IMHO, more to do with perception than facts. Bailey and Bruce--along with Alonso and Votto--none of them brought in by Krivsky--are the future of this franchise. When Walt talks to other ballclubs, whose names do you think come up? I'll bet it's the four I just mentioned.

Re: The Jocketty Files

Originally Posted by Spring~Fields

Harang, Arroyo and Cordero contract discussion always has a missing piece or two. They don't mention what the alternatives were, and what the effects and cost would have been given a different scenario for Krivsky and Castellini from that point forward.

This is often cited but what is omitted is what the market cost for pitchers of those ilk were when they were signed. If they had not been signed where would a bad team been without them, and if those three were gone today, what would be the replacement cost and terms of the contracts to replace them?

Just who would be available, wanting to come to Cincinnati and again at what cost. To constantly cite those contracts and to ignore that the pitching quality was needed then and is needed now and at a high price has a major hole in it.

Back up the calendar to when Harang, Arroyo and the time when Cordero was signed.

A. Letís say they donít sign Harang or Arroyo to an extension.
B. What do you have for pitching once it was decided that Arroyo and Harang were to costly.
C. Who was going to pitch.
D. What type of pitcher would have taken their place?
E. How would a team that was already bad have done without them?
F. No Cordero, so who would have closed, and what effect would that have had on the rest of the bullpen?
G. What other optionís that might have been had cost and consequences too.
H. Who were the better or equal to pitchers that the Reds could have signed at a lower amount?
I. Who can they sign now equal or greater than those three for a lower amount? I mean pitcherís who look as good now as when Harang, Arroyo and Cordero were signed.

Here you are in 2010 Walt catches a break, he is able to unload all three without sending any money, some sugar daddy of a coast team or teams take them off his hands for some top level offensive prospects, that Dusty and Walt just love.

Who is going to replace those experienced veteran pitchers?
Does any quality want to sign with Cincy?
Is any even available?
At what cost, and whatís the length of contracts.

Doesnít matter if it is now or if it was when Krivsky was strapped with the task of pleasing Castellini, the same questions or questions and obstacles like those had to be dealt with then, as the same would be challenges now, and very expensive.

To cite those three contracts to Krivsky is fine, they were signed while he was employed by Castellini, but to act, and to omit that those pitchers were needed then, and that some of their type/quality when pitching well is needed now, and that all pitching decent-good-to excellent cost, and it is not cheap no matter who the organization and to slip that by as if it was going to be addressed somehow, without filling that in, leaves a hole in the story of the three big bad contracts for pitchers.

Suppose that Castellini had not signed off on those contracts, knowing then as Castellini knows now of the ownership groups financial situations and plans, suppose Castellini would not have signed off on those, what would the pitching picture and past couple seasons without them have looked like, and would we not have been complaining all along for better pitching, as some of us are now? At what cost?

One way or another there would have been a replacement cost for those pitchers if they had not been signed, not just in dollars, but both, performances, dollars, and risk.

Plus it won't be too far into the future that you will get to find out what it is like to not have pitcher's like the ones pitching as they were when Harang, Arroyo, and even Cordero were signed.

I'll admit I wrote this poorly, I apologize, but I think you get my jest. While you might even be able to speak better to quality, cost, risk, performances or the lack of them, had those three not been signed and another group of three had taken their places.

I know in my at least my case I only mention the Cordero, Aaroyo and Hanang deals because they are in fact taking up close to half of the teams total salary.It's a fair point to bring up when defending Walt and his lack of major signings and moves as long as your not bashing the previous GM.I agree that at the time the Aaroyo and Harang deals seemed like good ideas but they have now become a burden to Walts ability to make any major changes.

I don't think that it's a reach to say that the team could easily be improved if Cordero,Harang and Aaroyo were all traded for a big pile of cash to be used to spend freely on free agents or taking on other large contracts in trades.

Re: The Jocketty Files

Originally Posted by Captain Hook

I know in my at least my case I only mention the Cordero, Aaroyo and Hanang deals because they are in fact taking up close to half of the teams total salary.It's a fair point to bring up when defending Walt and his lack of major signings and moves as long as your not bashing the previous GM.I agree that at the time the Aaroyo and Harang deals seemed like good ideas but they have now become a burden to Walts ability to make any major changes.

I don't think that it's a reach to say that the team could easily be improved if Cordero,Harang and Aaroyo were all traded for a big pile of cash to be used to spend freely on free agents or taking on other large contracts in trades.

i understand your point however IMO Arroyo & Harang aren't that overpaid. the Reds could certainly be better if they had tried the 'cheap closer' route as they would have extra cash to fill other holes

the reason 3 pitchers take up 50% of the Reds payroll is that the Reds payroll is so low. to get a team that is going to be competing for the playoffs each year Bob C is going to have to push that payroll up to the $90M mark.
even at $90M the Reds have to be smart & careful about their choices. at $70M dollars its hard to beat teams with payrolls significantly higher than yours (ie Cubs, Cards)

Re: The Jocketty Files

Originally Posted by Captain Hook

I don't think that it's a reach to say that the team could easily be improved if Cordero,Harang and Aaroyo were all traded for a big pile of cash to be used to spend freely on free agents or taking on other large contracts in trades.

I like to think that way too, but I don't think it works out as eaily as our minds eye can see it happening in our vision. It all seems so simple, but is it?

Large contracts under the restrictions of the budget that the current ownership has set are a hardship and do make it challenging for the general manager to make trades or player acquisitions. The general managers under Castellini and Lindner from Bowden forward in the 2000 decade have had to work under those same restrictions as player cost increased throughout that decade.

If we agreed that if the Reds were freed from those contracts to those three pitchers and that the funds were to be used on players to improve the team, what would be the areas of improvement that we would hypothetically attempt to make?

A. Pitchers to replace them, at equal to or greater than their performance levels, or something less?
B. Cost for equal to, cost for greater than, cost for less than?
C. Availability of potential pitching replacement, those that the Reds could sign, and or would be willing to come to Cincinnati for what the Reds can afford?
D. Do we go with the younger and less experienced pitchers that the Reds have on the roster and in system? That would save money, but, what about our goal to improve the team, will their performances do that?
E. Would he trade the three, paying a part of their contracts and receive prospects or large contracts back in players from the other team? If that larger contract is true, that will negate some of the funds that we were seeking to free up.

Our idea of free agents, assuming for offense or replacement pitching or both.
A. Would we seek one or two?
B. Are the free agents within the financial restrictions that we would be working with?
C. Would they be willing to sign with the Reds vs interest that they might have in signing with a team that they think has a better chance to win or whatever other intangibles interest them or their families, besides the tangibles of amount and length of contract?
D. Would this new free agent or free agents become more costly and riskier?
E. Are there any available that would be willing to sign within the financial parameters that would answer our purpose of improving the team?

Once we take on these other contracts without addressing the pitching won’t we be back in the same tight spot that the Reds have been in for this decade, and with a team that does not perform as well unless we can improve the pitching which can be very expensive, even if it is available to the Reds.

Aren’t we coming back to where Krivsky was on a given day as the general manager, and Jocketty is now, trying to make choices and decisions on how to improve the teams pitching, defense and offense with limited resources in a volatile and limited market for players? Isn’t this where Jocketty is this night?

How much of the budget are our new players in trades, free agents, or taken back contracts, how much of the budget are they going to consume? What percentage of the payroll? For how long?

So I would guess we would want some sort of balance between improving the pitching and the offense, which starts to make our pile of cash diminish quite quickly and commits us to large contracts again, doesn’t it? Especially if that budget hangs around the 70 million area?

There are a lot of hurdles and risk to be jumped over and worked around before we can be certain that the pile of cash and flexibility that would come from unloading those three contracts is turned into improving the team unless the Reds use mostly prospects and are able to be very fortunate in trades or the very limited and risky free agent market. I am not so sure that it can be easily done.

Our goals are to easily improve the team, to have a big pile of cash to spend freely on free agents or to take on or back large contracts for player or player's received in trades.

I am trying to work with your input in complete agreement, but, I am having trouble seeing how we are going to improve the team without talented pitching and at least some significant offensive talent performance increases.

I think those are going to put us right back to where Krivsky was, and Jocketty is.

I keep forgetting one point that many of us forget. To actually show improvement in the standings we also must improve the team to catch up with or to overcome the competitions efforts to improve and perform in the coming season and seasons in the near future. Can we do that on 70 million, could Krivsky or Jocketty?
The competition is real, to improve the Reds only over the previous Reds is not necessarily enough to cause an appearance of improvement against the competition.

Re: The Jocketty Files

It's very complicated for sure and while I admit to not having a good answer I will say that even the Yankees could find a couple starting pitchers and a few position players of need for 35 million dollars.

Re: The Jocketty Files

Originally Posted by Will M

i understand your point however IMO Arroyo & Harang aren't that overpaid. the Reds could certainly be better if they had tried the 'cheap closer' route as they would have extra cash to fill other holes

the reason 3 pitchers take up 50% of the Reds payroll is that the Reds payroll is so low. to get a team that is going to be competing for the playoffs each year Bob C is going to have to push that payroll up to the $90M mark.
even at $90M the Reds have to be smart & careful about their choices. at $70M dollars its hard to beat teams with payrolls significantly higher than yours (ie Cubs, Cards)

I only bring them up to make the point that to a very large degree Jocketty's hands were tied as soon as he took over.For the most part he has been unable to make trades or sign any of the top free agents because of those contracts.Walt hasn't had a chance to make this team his yet.He would've had to be almost perfect in getting a significant contribution from the free agents available to him considering the limited resources he has had to work with.To expect any GM to turn a team around in a short period under those circumstances is somewhat unrealistic.There's no doubt that some of Walts decisions could've been better but to say that he has been a complete failure is a little unfair.

I agree with the 90 million being a good number.It won't guarantee you anything but it will give you a fighting chance.

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most
importantly, enjoy yourselves!

RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball